|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total) |
| |
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,426 Year: 1,072/14,102 Month: 64/411 Week: 85/168 Day: 2/12 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi forexhr, and welcome to the fray.
Two points here. 1st math cannot disprove reality, it can only model it.
So if you model does not match reality, then there is something wrong with the model, not reality, and that's enough to answer your question. 2nd this type of argument is as old as the hills, and maybe you should do some research on it's validity first before making it. See the old improbable probability problem for some related info Also look at PRATT List Enjoy
by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
That is a mathematical model, and if you don't recognize it as such then you don't understand what you are arguing.
And again, this is your mathematical model of reality. Surely you are aware of the old saw of aeronautical engineers proving mathematically that bumble bees cannot fly ... but since we KNOW they can and DO fly, then it is obvious that the math was erroneous. The bees did not suddenly fall to the ground unable to fly because of the math. Likewise we have plenty of evidence that mutations occur, that selection occurs, that evolution occurs, so your argument is likewise invalid, no matter how pretty the numbers are to you.
It happens virtually every day, in virtually every species. It has been observed. Get used to it. Real theories are based on evidence and then math may be used to analyze and verify the theory, but math can never invalidate a theory, only empirical objective evidence can do that.
You look at those numbers and say the math shows evolution cannot happen. I look at those numbers and say that evolution happening shows the numbers are irrelevant. The difference is that my argument is based on evidence, while yours is based on wishful thinking. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Except that evolution did and does happen, the objective empirical evidence demonstrates this every day in every species. Therefore there is something wrong with your argument -- it is disproved by reality.
The numbers can very well be in the right ballpark, but there is an element missing between them and what actually occurs. What is obvious is that the bumblebee does in fact fly.
Nope, try again. Perhaps learning what evolution actually is might help. See Evolution 101 from Berkeley for starters.
Correct, your opinion is entirely incapable of altering reality in any way shape or form. It amuses me that you claim your argument is not a mathematical model of reality, yet all you argue with is numbers and their relationships, not objective empirical evidence. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And yet bumblebees fly. The engineers that did the calculation went back and checked their assumptions, found where they were wrong, and in the process discovered an aspect of bumblebee flight they had not considered before. Something to consider. Part of your problem is that you describe the issue in a way that limits the way resources available to create biotic and pre-biotic molecules are viewed.
That was written 12 years ago, and since then further advances in the science of abiogenesis have occurred, increasing our knowledge of how life could develop with the resources available. It was followed by Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II), written 8 years ago. Once developed, it would of course evolve, just as it continues to evolve today, in every known species. To evolve, it does not need to create new proteins de novo, it just needs to modify ones already in use, as is observed to occur in life today. As you can see I come to very different conclusions than you do. Mine are evidence based, rather than mathematically and wishful thinking based. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
That just list objective empirical evidence. Facts do tend to be rather unfalsifiable ...
So "bio-functionality in organic matter" means ...
So again I come to the point where your argument is incomplete and based on you only looking at part of the issue and thinking you have a complete picture. Bumblebees fly. If your calculations show that Bumblebees cannot fly, then the calculations are in error, bees don't suddenly drop to the ground. When engineers included the thrust generated during the backstroke, they showed the bees could fly. Rather obviously, once you have life, you have all the "bio-functionality in organic matter" needed in the environment to allow organisms to grow, and thrive, and evolve. The fact that there are massive numbers of other possible combinations of organic molecules is totally and completely irrelevant to evolution occurring because the ones necessary for life to grow, and thrive, and evolve are assembled by existing life in the process of living. Therefor it is impossible for your argument to inhibit life to grow, and thrive, and evolve. It won't suddenly stop because of your math. Your model is incomplete. At best you have a (very) weak and incomplete argument against abiogenesis and none against evolution.
Curiously, I don't need luck, I have objective empirical evidence to support my argument. Enjoy * simple definition for first life: something that can evolve. Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Actually that assumption is deeply flawed because it is completely wrong and in no way reflects how evolution actually works. Curiously, I told you earlier that you need to learn how evolution actually works and suggested an easy way to learn: Berkeley Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution. Doing so would stop you from making silly mistakes like this. It astounds me how many creationists/IDologists think they have proof that evolution doesn't work, and yet have no clue how it actually works.
And again, this is not how evolution actually works, it is more along the lines of a happy accident: a change in DNA sequence occurs and it has 3 possible outcomes:
The first are called deleterious mutations, and by causing the death of the organism they cull themselves from the reproductive gene pool. The second are called neutral mutations, junk DNA, etc. and can continue to exist and even spread (via genetic drift) within the reproductive gene pool. The third are called beneficial mutations, and because they improve the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce, they spread by natural selection within the reproductive gene pool. Further such changes can occur in the second and third groups, but not in the first, obviously. When a neutral mutation later interacts with another mutation and results in a beneficial mutation is how two step mutations can result in a beneficial mutation. In this sense every living organism is a laboratory experimenting with small changes. Do you have any idea how many living organisms cover the earth today? Do you know how many generations of such laboratories have existed since life began on earth? Evolution does not go looking for new proteins, it happens (stumbles) upon them by the happy accident of beneficial mutations. This is why the actual processes of evolution disprove your argument of incredulity from massive numbers of actually irrelevant proteins. You have two choices: First, accept that you are wrong and go learn what evolution is actually about, or Second, deny or ignore this fact and continue to assert a false argument. Just remember that there are four types of people that don't accept evolution (based on Dawkins' article "ignorance is not a crime"):
Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021